+Cc Junio so you know what development model I'm using, and comment with your thoughts (if you want to). On 13/09/19 11:32PM, Birger Skogeng Pedersen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:37 PM Pratyush Yadav <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Birger, > > > > I'm afraid you are working on an older version of this patch. You should > > be re-rolling [0], which works well with Bert's "amend check button" > > change. > > > > [0] https://public-inbox.org/git/b82a00441ff1a6a9cea3fd235c1c33729ec31b71.1567713659.git.bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Forgive me, I get a little bit confused. Should my patch be based on > "next" or "master" branch? For git-gui, ignore "next" for now. I considered using a model similar to Git where patches first get queued to "next" (or "pu" depending on how finished they are). And then after some time letting people use them, they are merged to "master" which eventually goes in the release. But this seems to be too complicated to me without any clear benefit. I think for now using just "master" for git-gui should be fine, since I won't directly release git-gui. Instead I'll periodically ask Junio to pull changes from my master. This will be our "release". So essentially my "master" for now acts as a place for people involved in development to test out all the changes, and then the rest of the world gets the new version along with Git's release. (Junio, you have done this for much longer than I have, so is there a major problem with my workflow?) If all this seems too complicated, just work on top of my "master". The rest of it is mostly my problem. > Also, is it an issue that this patch won't work unless you merge > Bert's 1/2 patch[0]? Your patch is dependent on Bert's patch. This means I will have to merge his patch first, and then yours. And that makes complete sense. That's how dependent changes should work. So no, it is not an issue that this patch won't work unless I merge Bert's patch first. So while my advice above was to work on top of "master", that does not apply in this case since your patch is dependent on someone's patch which isn't in master yet. So in this specific case, you should base your patch on top of Bert's. Otherwise there are two problems: - Your patch in and of itself makes little sense, it probably would crash or do some unexpected stuff. This hurts people doing a bisect, where if they land on your patch stuff is broken, and they have to manually move a commit up or down to continue. - Your patch will textually conflict with Bert's. That means I'd first merge Bert's patch since yours doesn't work without his. But then when I merge yours, I'd get a nasty merge conflict that is not easy to resolve and leaves chances for a subtle bug. > Your feedback cannot be too specific, I want to learn how to do this > properly :-) I'm not sure how well I explained this, so feel free to ask more questions if I didn't explain something properly :). > [0] https://public-inbox.org/git/ab1f68cc8552e405c9d04622be1e728ab81bda17.1567713659.git.bert.wesarg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav
